2 Dec 2007


~What an excellant post CT 1538 I hope you dont mind me reproducing it on my blog. The links to original BBC articles are utterly damning. Thanks for those! So the children were checked at 9.30 and found to be all sleeping safe and sound and yet at 9.15 Jane Tanner now recalls she saw someone carrying off not something that could have been a child as she originally stated but Madeleine in her pink pyjamas - sounds like witchcraft! I note the McCann supporters did not want to answer you - as Rosipops would say "I dont respond to argumentative posts" LOL

02.12.07, 6:00pm
Before I ask. It's quite amusing to see the McCann defenders scrambling around looking for links to unsubstantiated newspaper reports when they're only too keen to accuse others of doing so.As I have stated before when I first took interest in this case I tried to approach it with an objective mind. I have since become suspcious of the McCanns. Here are some of the reasons, perhaps those keen to defend could explain them. I have been accused of using unsubstantiated newspaper reports before which is not true. These are based on some of the few facts we know.1) The Jane Tanner sighting. Someone said that we don't know what she originally said to the PJ but we do, because, at the McCanns' insistence they made a press release approved by team McCann.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6695129.stmThe only thing they wanted changed was the height from 5' 10'' to 5' 7''. In the press release it states she saw a man carrying a child or an object which may have been a child. This is a significant difference to what she said on Panorama i.e. she saw a child wearing pink pyjamas with their feet uncovered. Originally the man had short hair, changed in the drawing and Panorama to down his neck. Johncar pointed out earlier that memory would fade with time not become much more accurate.2) Why did they tell relatives that the shutters had been jemmied, yet there was no evidence of this.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm3) The continue claim that they were close by, 50 yards, is GMs usual figure.The distance was 120 metres. This can be checked on Google maps. Also the claim that they could see the apartment , even stated on Panorama by Jon Cornner looking through his camera lens,as a clear view of the apartment. Do they think people are that gullible. Very little could be seen. Probably just enough to see if a fire started although they would have probably told Madeleine about the fire exits.4) Not really fact this but can anyone explain the photo of the McCanns on Ms' birthday. The one where they are walking, alongside the crowd with balloons and flowers in their arms, like they're royalty. The grins on their faces aren't forced, but look like they're having a great time. It was her birthday !!! Good grief.5) When KM arrives at apartment at 10pm. She finds a window open. JT sees her suspect walking along the road. The inference being that the alleged abductor has climbed out of the window and over a small wall carrying a sleeping child. I find this impossible to believe. It sounds like it was written by the Grimm Brothers. I had good confirmation of this yesterday when I carried my grandson in from the car because he had fallen asleep. He has just turned 3 and if someone carried out what I have described above then we can narrow the search to an Olympic weightlifter or the like.
• Posted by: ct1538

No comments: